14 United States Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama's Rogue Feder

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

14 United States Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses, To Be Ready Against Obama's Rogue Federal Forces!


redwhitebluenews.com

Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s De
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this is true or not but if it is, it's very scary stuff. the obamas have a fierce love of power and I don't believe they will willingly give up. Funny though how it is all southern states mentioned in this article. But with all the threats going on right now from americans over who wins the elections, I can see why individual states would want to call up their own militias. It would be way better than declared martial law.

redwhitebluenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Do you have any other sources, other than a rabid right-wing blog?

Sorry, but there are serious credibility issues here.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Yes, it's the most slow-motion takeover ever, been happening since 2010!!! If I were you, I'd get moving, you might only have 8-10 years left to act!



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Just the link that is in the article. sorry. I don't really believe this but this is a conspiracy site and I thought it would be fun to debate.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


There was a thread on this yesterday RIGHT HERE.

Just saying!


edit on 17-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Somehow I'm notvreassured, the state troops will probably force ROMNEY into power, so what's the difference?



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


thank you for linking that thread. I somehow missed that it was already on ats. mods please remove my thread.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


State Guard units are just that, state, and not federal. The federal government cannot dissolve them and to the best of my knowledge no state has dissolved their guard units, let alone reconstituted them.

The Federral government cannot forcibly place state units under federal command unless it meets certain criteria. Specifically when it comes to actions within the untied states you are looking at the state refusing to comply with federl law (last seen during civil rights movement) or a state / city being labeled in a state of rebellion or insurrection.

Absent that, and using the example of Hurricane Katrina and Louisianna, the FEderal government has no authority over state guard units.

To assume that all levels of the federal government, including military and federal law enforcement, is going to receive the support of all members of state and local / city governments, including state military, law enforcement, etc, is not only naieve but ignorant to the extent of seeing conspiracies under every rock.

As a member of law enforcement I am not going to support an action that is not only illegal, but designed to strip the citizens of their rights / weapons / redress of greivences against the government. To assume the federal government could pull something of that magnitude off with nothing but unfettered / unquestioned support by all individuals invovled at all levels, branches, military and law enforcement, is unrealistic.

The only morons I see even remotely holding this type of discussion are those who claim they will riot should Obama lose the election and to be quite honest, after seeing the manner in which that group has represented themselves, has been nothing but self defeating.

People seem to ignore the fact the Federal mmilitary, while required to be under civilian leadership, took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Based on this Presidents track record and abuse of the military I seriously doubt they will blindly follow orders to disarm / take action against the US population.

People need to put the tinfoil hats away and use some common sense and think the scenario through all the way to the end instead of just looking at the start.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


Well, it may be true, but I can't verify that from the article. The link takes you to another link that is heavy with sensationalism and absolutely zero evidence. It's one of those right-wing "where's the birth certificate?" type websites, and insists that there are Muslim terror cells in 16 American states. (Really! The FBI knows where they are, and they're doing nothing about it, because Obama is a secret Muslim, dontcha know!)

Stuff like this distracts from the real conspiracies.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
THIS is why I know America will never go into a full swing revolution against police and military, because there are too many good and decent people in power in the U.S (Yes, REAL people)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thank-You for your post, it was very comforting to hear that there are still members of law enforcement that feel this way....honestly the police scare me to death these days.......nice to know there are still good guys out there....



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The CINC can mobilize the National Guard, because even though they are state forces, they are Title 10 US Federal forces when called upon. I suppose the Adjutant General of the States could disobey the federalization order, but they would be dismissed and someone else put into place.

State Defense Forces are a different matter. These are volunteer "militia's"essentially, sponsered by the state. Most, if not all states have provisions to have a "State Defense Force", even if in actuallity they have none functioning. Most don't have any functioning units.

I said most, some do....but their mission, training, and capabilities vary. In most states they are unarmed, and are more of a volunteer disaster relief/search and resuce/red cross type organization. Many have missions similar to the Civil Air Patrol.

Some however; are armed, and can function in a similar manner as the state National Guard units.

The OP original source seems dubious, but getting the info on State Guard or State Defense Forces is helpful. Most people aren't aware of them or lump them in with the "private militia's" that are painted out to be extremists (some actually are). The wiki site below has good info and links on state guard forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

Civil Air Patrol, also through their links in since they function in somewhat a similar fashion. Great programs there. If you have kids their cadet program is one of the best.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.gocivilairpatrol.com...

I was in the Civil Air Patrol for about 7 years and have often thought of getting back in. I have looked at State Guard too, but that's a little more of a gray area so to speak.
edit on 17-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: additional info and clarification
edit on 17-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Since you have more information and familiarity in this area a question about some of the info you have supplied. What criteria is required to allow for federalization of state guard units? This was a topic of discussion during Katrina, and the President opted NOT to fedralize Louisianna guard units (at the time the Governor would not allow them to voluntarily be placed under fedral command).

So while I understand they are sibjet to title 10, there is criteria that must be met in order to use them - yes or no?

If so what is that criteria?
If the intent of mobolization is to use them because elections are being suspended / congress dissolved, would those orders not be illegal sionce the actions requiring their mobilization are also illegal?

As for the adjutant general refusing an order, if the order is unconcstitutional and illegal to begin with, do you still feel they should be releive and replaced with another person?

While I understand this is a broad concept, specifically I am looking at illegal orders being issued, with the magbnitude of those orders being so illegal, as to constitute treason in my opinion on the part of those people at the top issuing those orders. If the order is given to mobilize military units in order to put down the population who just got screwed, illegally, out of an election, would you still feel the same in terms of replacing adjutant generals?

If yes, why (if you dont mind me asking?)

Specifically I am referring to the Montgonmery Amendment, which removed the ability of Governors to refuse to allow guard units be used in military capacity outside the borders of the US. It did not modify the ability of the Governor to refuse those same orders when it comes to their use within the borders of the United States.

While the following 2 acts have removed the governors ability to be the sole commander in chief of their states guards units, placing them under direct command of the PResident during times of national emergency, the states have rejected the fedral law (all 50 of them) - with the law sunsetting on Sept, 2012.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


What a bunch of crazy B.S.. Judging by the states listed in the article, I suspect they will be using this flag to represent their army;




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


What a bunch of crazy B.S.. Judging by the states listed in the article, I suspect they will be using this flag to represent their army;





You should educate yourself before jumping to such a naieve conclusion.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Since you have more information and familiarity in this area a question about some of the info you have supplied. What criteria is required to allow for federalization of state guard units? This was a topic of discussion during Katrina, and the President opted NOT to fedralize Louisianna guard units (at the time the Governor would not allow them to voluntarily be placed under fedral command).

So while I understand they are sibjet to title 10, there is criteria that must be met in order to use them - yes or no?

If so what is that criteria?
If the intent of mobolization is to use them because elections are being suspended / congress dissolved, would those orders not be illegal sionce the actions requiring their mobilization are also illegal?

As for the adjutant general refusing an order, if the order is unconcstitutional and illegal to begin with, do you still feel they should be releive and replaced with another person?

While I understand this is a broad concept, specifically I am looking at illegal orders being issued, with the magbnitude of those orders being so illegal, as to constitute treason in my opinion on the part of those people at the top issuing those orders. If the order is given to mobilize military units in order to put down the population who just got screwed, illegally, out of an election, would you still feel the same in terms of replacing adjutant generals?

If yes, why (if you dont mind me asking?)

Specifically I am referring to the Montgonmery Amendment, which removed the ability of Governors to refuse to allow guard units be used in military capacity outside the borders of the US. It did not modify the ability of the Governor to refuse those same orders when it comes to their use within the borders of the United States.

While the following 2 acts have removed the governors ability to be the sole commander in chief of their states guards units, placing them under direct command of the PResident during times of national emergency, the states have rejected the fedral law (all 50 of them) - with the law sunsetting on Sept, 2012.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Wow...ok....First I am by no means an expert on this, but I'll do the best I can.

Strictly speaking, since a State Defense Force/State Guard is a volunteer organization, if it was "called up", but everyone disagreed with why or how, just don't show up. It's not like, strictly speaking, your AWOL or violating UCMJ. Some might lose their membership, but that's about it. When I was in CAP, we went on some official USAF designated missions. Units were called up, but if you couldn't go, you couldn't go.

Now. I did find the following US Code's on State Forces (which was deep in the wiki site, but the sources bear out)....


The U.S. Constitution, coupled with several statutes and cases, details the relationship of state defense forces to the federal government. Outside of 32 USC 109, the U.S. Supreme Court noted: "It is true that the state defense forces 'may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.' 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the 'militia' from the 'armed forces,' and which appear to subject all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses" (Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)). The Court, however, explicitly noted that it was not deciding this issue.[47] The following is an extract of the laws which the Court cited as possibly giving the federal government authority to activate the state defense forces:


10 USC 331 - “Federal aid for State governments”

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

10 USC 332 – “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority”

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

to be continued next post......running out of room...........



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
10 USC 333 – “Interference with State and Federal law”

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.


So after reading the 3 USCs listed, and the info I posted above.....I would say that there is no real controlling law.

One law says SDFs can't be called to federal service. The other basicly states that they can under the various "militia" clauses. What I don't know is if it takes either "FULL MOBILIZATION" and/or a DRAFT to call the organized or unorganized militias. I suppose POTUS could "federalize" state defense forces by calling them "militia". But since said militia are volunteer organizations, you would have to come up with away of drafting just a certain group of people, and I don't think the Selective Service System has that capability.

And per the court case I cited in the earlier post, the court essentially stated just that..... you can't call state guard, but you can call them as militia, BUT WE AREN"T RULING on that..



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
As far as your question on illegal orders. that gets sticky in and of itself. You would need to consult UCMJ on that. I would say the AG would simply have to resign, but a new commander would be appointed for that unit, and I am sure that appointee would be "politically safe" for the admin persuing whatever agenda the scenario envisions.

If the States, as you state, cannot resist having their forces called up for outside duty, but all states have refused, it's borderline more of a constitution crisis.

No.....because if you are as you state talking about the election results this year and things get so bad were calling Guard and then State Guard, well..........then at some point down the road of your questions you start approaching a point of people making a choice of what they beleive is right or wrong, and at that point it's probably looking dang close to open rebellion/civil war and just like in 1861 it will come down to every person, officer , elected official, state etc......taking sides and the chips end up falling where they may......
edit on 17-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: (no reason given)


Good questions Xcathrdra, and I don't know if I like where the thoughts lead me too...yikes.
edit on 17-10-2012 by SrWingCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
Good questions Xcathrdra, and I don't know if I like where the thoughts lead me too...yikes.


Thanks for answering and I greatly appreciate the view point you have ( and Thank you for your service). The last part of your response is specifically where I am going with this scenario and asking people to play it out in their minds to the end point result.

To me it runs paralell to what hapens if during a criminal investigation evidence is illegally acquired, resulting in the seizure of even more damning evidence.

If the evidence that started the entire chain is illegally obtained, then we use the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine (exceptions exist but you get the idea). It says that evidence, and any and all evidence subsequently obtained as a direct result of the first tainted evidence, is inadmissible.

If the President takes an action that dissolves Congress and suspends elections, an act that is illegal (and again in my opinion and based on the scenario treasonous both at the fedral AND state level), then the resulting actions of individuals who would refuse to follow certain orders, while illegal on its face, would be acting legally in the end. An argument for a court room to be sure bvut on e myust ask the question, in a scenario like this, if that last part is even a possibility.

If actions are taken to dissove and suspend elections, then one can assume that the chances of legal redress using the courts is also going to be intefered with or outright ignored. Effectively removing an entire branch of government, the legislative, and pointing out that branch directly represnets the American people, leads me to beleive it would be just the start and will not simply stop there.

Whilie I completely and totally understand the importance of a chain of command, undue command influence, and what can occur should good order and discipline completely fail, I am still brought back to the need for people in positions of authority, those who will carry out orders, to have the ability to look at the reasons for such and order and to ask if those roders are in fact lawful and constitutional (with regards to this specific scenario - this area is so unique we cannot view it in broad strokes).

Actions -
The President, seeing a loss in the elections, takes an unprecedented, and illegal, step to suspend the elections.
The President, seeing the US Congress looking at impeachment, takes the step of dissolving Congress.

This is going to force an immediate review by the US Supreme Court of those actions, with the results being the actions are illegal and unconstitutional, falling outside the power granted to the President under the Constitution.

This means the US Supreme Court is ignored / removed.

This actons alone should be enough for any individual in government, the military forces or law enforcement at all levels to see that any orders issued that are linked into the origional illegal actions are also going to be ilegal. We can delve into the oath of office taken at all levels for various groups within that require an allegiance to the document itself and not the individual.

Removing all levels of federal or state entities, we still have the population of the United States who are not going to agree with or like those actions, and will take action on their own, regardless if they are supported by the military or law enforcement.

We are then faced with the scenarios we see all over the world where the actions of the government, which ellicit massive population blowback, somehow try to justify their actions regardless of how illegal they are.

With that being said our Constitution allows the people to overthrow our government every 2 years, lawfully. All that is required is an active populace who vote. We do in fact have term limits at the federal level - they are called elections. Its not enough to simply vote anymore. A person must move beyond that one day and hold those elected officals accountible.

If we are that concerned about Obamas actions there is nothing stopping a citizen from getting with their elected officals to draft a bill that specifically prohibits certain actions, like using an EO to bypass Congress.

The very document the government uses to justify its actions allows the population to tell the government they are fired.

** - In general and not directed at you - **

Vote - get involved - hold people accountible, including yourselves, for those who do not bother to vote or keep watch after the vote.

The use of force to change government, while allowed under our Constitution, should only be used as an extreme last resort - something our founding fathers demonstrated by exhausting all attempts at redress to the crown before opening up a keg of whoop ass at Concord and Lexington.

"Inter arma enim silent leges " - This statement is leaving the people as the sole entity that is responsible for saying no.
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant